When and When Not to Stray from the Source

Rikun

New member
Nov 19, 2009
46
0
0
So I just read the latest development in Fox's reboot of Fantastic Four and already the change to Doctor Doom is adding more salt to the wound of many Fantastic Four fans:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=110856#comments

And while I was tempted to get my fanboy knickers in a twist, I remembered that I recently saw Big Hero 6 last weekend and really loving how Disney took the relatively obscure team and completely changed everything about them to create a smash success. I enjoyed the movie and loved how the story went, but maybe in that case I had no idea about the original comic so I couldn't really complain.

Also, we gotta take into account just how much change had to be made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, many of which are too numerous to count. And yet I'm completely ok with what's going on here while I find myself cursing Fox and wishing they'd finally just give up on FF and give it back to Marvel.

So now I'm wondering if I'm being a hypocrite for being miffed at the changes to Fantastic Four, yet completely open to the changes of Big Hero 6 and the MCU. The best in me is telling me to keep an open mind, but then when you take a licensed property and change everything beyond recognition, you have to wonder what the point of obtaining the license in the first place would be. And I feel that at this point Fox may have alienated just about every Fantastic Four fan that could've helped make their money back.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
I honestly don't know...

I mean you can debate to hell and back why something works and why something shouldn't be changes but ultimately you don't know how it will come out in the wash until its made
 

Parasondox

New member
Jun 15, 2013
3,229
0
0
The problem with comic books in general is that the source material always changes. So when I hear many complain about "but it's not part of the source material", I just reply back, "which one?"

There has been Soviet Superman, Nazi Batman, Thor Frog, depressed Wolverine, abusive Ant-man, and super nerdy and always picked on badly Spider-man before millions of changes.

All I will say is, and what I go by now instead of being upset by a piece of news, I won't knock it until I see it. Let's just hope I don't turn turn into MovieBob and scream "THIS IS NOT THE MOVIE I WANTED!!!". It's not about you.
 

ExtraDebit

New member
Jul 16, 2011
533
0
0
I like changes but stick to the original moral of the story. For example, I could care less if Clark Kent was raise in a farm or downtown new york, or weather he's a journalist or stock broker as long at the idea of superman is someone that fight for justice and freedom. If they can spin a story where superman comes out as a symbol for that then the origin stories or the fillers (love interest etc) doesn't really matter.

The new superman movie stick pretty close to the source on the surface but not the things that really matters. They didn't show us what superman stands for or the origin that made him into what he is. I'm not talking about being able to fly, I'm talking about why he choose to fly where he flies.

I'll admit that some changes to race, background and origin just doesn't work because it is too intertwine with the overall theme of the story. Can you imagine Black Panther not being black and not from wakanda? It wouldn't work because that's what the story is about, any change to those two things and you might as well tell a different story.

How about Spiderman story where uncle ben didn't die? It wouldn't work because one of the main theme of spiderman is about redemption and learning about powers and responsibility the hardway.

A good change is made by people who "gets it", bad changes is made by people who made the new fantastic four.
 

totheendofsin

some asshole made me set this up
Jul 31, 2009
417
0
0
Being apprehensive about change doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes you human.

It's also worth mentioning that Marvel and Disney have good track records when it comes to adapting comic books, the guys in charge of the Fantastic 4 movies, not so much
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
I suppose it boils down to why these particular changes are made and does it do anything at all to enhance the story (or at the very least, not hurt it). A good actor/actress can also really help to give those changes meaning.

In the Golden Compass books, Marisa Coulter has brown hair. In the movies she's played by Nicole Kidman (with blond hair) and she did such a good job portraying Mrs. Coulter that Philip Pullman (the author of the books) actually commented "I got that part wrong, Mrs. Coulter is definitely blond."

The same can be said for Nick Fury, who was originally white. Now he's played by Samuel L. Jackson and I can't imagine anyone else in that role.

I'm sure given the way Guardians of the Galaxy turned out, Marvel has very good reasons for making the changes that they do and obviously they feel confident their decisions are the right ones. Warner Brother's track record is not so clean.

There are also probably other unseen factors that go into a good vs bad adaptation. What's the deadline like? How well are things planned? What corners were cut? What's the budget? How are we using it? All of these things can make or break a movie in general.

I think ultimately, if the movie ends up good and keeps the same "spirit" as the adaptation, people won't care that it deviates from the source material. Obviously there are some things to keep in mind, if you change something at it's very core, there's no point in even calling it an adaptation. Tony Stark played by Robert Downy Jr. is still a cocky asshole, but he's a different kind of cocky asshole than he is in the comics. However Tony Stark as a character who acts more like Steve Rogers probably wouldn't fly.

Then again you also have the Joker, who is played by Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger and depending on who you talk to, it's arguable which version is the best.

[sub][sub]In other words OP, I don't know.[/sub][/sub]
 

zen5887

New member
Jan 31, 2008
2,923
0
0
Changes are fine so long as the core of the source is similar. But then sometimes not.

Iron Man as an Asian woman? Sure, as long as she acts like how we'd expect Iron Man to act. Or, maybe not. Maybe some writer or actor or director is out there who can do an amazing Iron Man as an Asian woman that completely flips what we think of Iron Man on it's head. It's happened before, right? People were furious when Heath Ledger was first announced as The Joker, but he knocked it out of the park, despite being totally different to the type of Joker I was used to (the animated Joker).

It really bugs me when people get so possessive of characters transferring into other mediums. Especially comic books. There have been some absolutely bonkers shit happen in canon, and for everything else there are alternate universes. Why is it so hard to accept that Heimdall is black when there have been a bunch of successful stories where everyone is zombies.
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
*Edit* Initially posted wrong comment in wrong thread!

I have no problem with deviation from the source material, so long as it is done with some creative integrity. When it is done as a shallow attempt to make a character more appealing to a demographic, or to dumb something down for mass appeal, that tends to make me grind my teeth.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Eeh, it depends. Sometimes you can create great art by taking a totally different approach. But if it becomes different enough it just becomes a matter of 'you just used the well-known name to sell your story'


Thing to keep in mind with the Marvel/DC though, (which people have already pointed out) is that the source material already has all kinds of different interpretations. And something like Fantastic Four has already changed with the times to reflect how societal views have changed. (Like in how the first FF-comics Richards treats his wife like a child, not that she also doesn't act like one)

Do you really want that original FF for your movie?
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
Hard to say really since while I am more acceptable for changed mades when it come to superheroes movies but at the same time I was offended over the changed they did to Deadpool in Wolverine Origin and Venom in Ultimate Spiderman (you do NOT Get Venom just by messing around with Peter Paker blood)!
I guess the borderland is somewhat is changes is ok as long the core of the that superhero is intact (replacing Hank with Tony being the creator of Ultron didn't bother me since Ultron origin is the same but different creator) and the changes made to a character is still faithful to the original character itself (like the ethnic race to that Asgard guardian was never an issue to me as he still kickass in the film).
 

Adaephon

New member
Jun 15, 2009
126
0
0
I've always felt that if you are going to adapt something you should basically try to change everything you can. Obviously it should still remain recognizably the same concept and the key ideas should stay the same but if you are just going to redo the same thing than why bother? An adaptation will never be quite the same as the original and usually(not always) that means it won't be as good so why bother making a shitty watered-down version of the same thing? Why not just go your own direction with it and make something new? Sure the new version is not guaranteed to be better, or even good for that matter, but at least it will have a point in existing, but a straight as-close-as-possible adaptation is just pointless.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Scarim Coral said:
Hard to say really since while I am more acceptable for changed mades when it come to superheroes movies but at the same time I was offended over the changed they did to Deadpool in Wolverine Origin and Venom in Ultimate Spiderman (you do NOT Get Venom just by messing around with Peter Paker blood)!
I guess the borderland is somewhat is changes is ok as long the core of the that superhero is intact (replacing Hank with Tony being the creator of Ultron didn't bother me since Ultron origin is the same but different creator) and the changes made to a character is still faithful to the original character itself (like the ethnic race to that Asgard guardian was never an issue to me as he still kickass in the film).
I'm curious, what's your objection to Venom being made from Peter's blood then? How is itsorigin important to the character?
(Not saying it isn't, what's important depends on the people, just wondering)

And yeah, that Deadpool was an utter waste of a character, as was the Ultimate universe Deadpool. In both cases the character had nothing to do with Deadpool, if you renamed them it would be impossible to tell who they were supposed to be.

It wasn't even a case of reimagining the character to make something new; it was making a nonsensical generic character instead of following the source material to make an actually unique and interesting one.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
Lieju said:
Scarim Coral said:
Hard to say really since while I am more acceptable for changed mades when it come to superheroes movies but at the same time I was offended over the changed they did to Deadpool in Wolverine Origin and Venom in Ultimate Spiderman (you do NOT Get Venom just by messing around with Peter Paker blood)!
I guess the borderland is somewhat is changes is ok as long the core of the that superhero is intact (replacing Hank with Tony being the creator of Ultron didn't bother me since Ultron origin is the same but different creator) and the changes made to a character is still faithful to the original character itself (like the ethnic race to that Asgard guardian was never an issue to me as he still kickass in the film).
I'm curious, what's your objection to Venom being made from Peter's blood then? How is itsorigin important to the character?
(Not saying it isn't, what's important depends on the people, just wondering)

And yeah, that Deadpool was an utter waste of a character, as was the Ultimate universe Deadpool. In both cases the character had nothing to do with Deadpool, if you renamed them it would be impossible to tell who they were supposed to be.

It wasn't even a case of reimagining the character to make something new; it was making a nonsensical generic character instead of following the source material to make an actually unique and interesting one.
It was more of suspense of belief for me. I mean yes there are some much shit that goes into comicbook that define logics (a planet side person that eat planet, making a suit of armour inside a cave of junk etc) but for the Venom origin used in cartoon Ultimate Spider-man (I forgot to mention it was in the cartoon, not the comic as I read somewhere Ultiamte Venom was like a supposely cure for cancer) I just cannot take.

The origin for Venom was that it was an alien symbiotes that latched onto Spider-man during the Secret War (or The Animated Series version, it latched onto the spaceship that crash landed into New York and then latched onto Spider-Man).

The Ultimate version was that Doc Oct got a hold of Spider-Man blood and mess around with it for no reason and it somehow created Venom which to me it just feel like lazy writing. I mean what the hell? Are you suppose to tell me is that Spider-Man is dangerous (blood wise) or he is Venom itself and what stopping others to making more Venom now that Doc Oct learn how to do it? I don't see why they can't used the same olde it came from space and latched onto Spider-Man some how.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
The most important part of creating 'reboots' is to stick to the spirit of the source, not to the absolute fact. For example, it would be fine to have Superman grow up in Metropolis, because the part of his background that's important is not him plowing fields as a youth, but his relationship with his parents. Now, if you change it to him growing up in the woods of Smallville, raised by wolves, your kind of violating the spirit of the character.

As for the Doom change... the spirit of Doom, as I know it, is egotistical, self-important, and completely bombastic. And personally, I don't think an anti-social basement dwelling nerd who spends all his time on forums under the name of Doom really fits.
 

WhiteFangofWhoa

New member
Jan 11, 2008
2,548
0
0
Arguable according to viewer. I for one believe that so long as the producers understand what made the previous edition's version of a character memorable and bring that across as best they can along with whatever new ideas they want to, the sky's the limit.

The Doom rumour... now that does sound pretty 'out there'. There were three basic things about Doom that people remembered most from comics:
1- His scarily high competence and resources for a comic book villain, always turning out to be a Doombot if captured in the field.
2- Being aloof and egotistical enough to constantly refer to himself in the third person, although with a name like that it's more understandable than most.
3- Born from 2, his steadfast refusal to accept that the scientific accident that scarred his face was anyone's fault but his former colleague 'RICHARDS!!'

So long as those three factors are preserved in some shape, I wouldn't cry foul until seeing the actual movie. Perhaps he's the most egotistical blogger ever who used to be friends with Reed. The only thing that doesn't fit is the competence part, but perhaps it's just a Mandarin-esque cover for actually having massive influence in that country which he then leverages against the FF out of his personal vendetta. Or perhaps the developers are of the mindset that blogging and things like it will become the new best way to become politically powerful in the near future.
 

Mahorfeus

New member
Feb 21, 2011
996
0
0
I know some people like to shit all over the Hobbit movies, calling them Peter Jackson's fanfic, but honestly I've always thought that the original novel would make a pretty crappy movie if it were taken as is. I get that some (if not a lot) of the additions were totally unnecessary, and yet I can't help but feel that there is more substance being added where there was none in the book. To name a few things, the dwarves actually have distinguishable personalities, especially Thorin, and Smaug actually comes off as being a huge threat rather than a plot device that falls flat a few pages later, when a new character comes out of the blue and one shots him. Lo' and behold, Bard actually somewhat qualifies as a substantial character in the movies.

At this point I am just ranting, but I do think that sometimes some changes from the source material are for the better... Just as long as the work still captures the spirit of the thing, even if only a little.